Bombay High Court
ROVINA SHELDON REMEDIUS AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail must be granted because the FIR and witness statements do not specifically charge the appellants, and the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18‑A of the SC/ST Act does not apply.
Summary
The appellants, Rovina Sheldon Remedius and Sheldon Desmond Remedius, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after being implicated in a murder case (Crime No. 153 of 2025) arising from a property dispute. The FIR lodged by the deceased's wife did not name the appellants, and the eye‑witness statements did not attribute any overt act to them, leading the appellants to argue there was no basis for arrest. The State contended that the appellants were present at the scene, that witnesses implicated them, and that the bar under Sections 18 and 18‑A of the SC/ST Act precluded anticipatory bail. The trial judge had rejected the bail application, but on appeal the High Court examined whether the statutory bar applied given the lack of specific allegations against the appellants. Finding that the FIR and statements did not specifically charge the appellants and that the bar could not be invoked, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the appellants can be granted anticipatory bail when the FIR and witness statements do not specifically allege their participation.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(3), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 18-A, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- murder
- property dispute
- section 18 bar
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
18-apeal-711-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2026
1. Rovina Sheldon Remedius
2. Sheldon Desmond Remedius …Appellants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Chaitanya Pendse a/w Mr. Pavan Patil, Mr. Amit Mane, Mr.
Atharva Jagtap & Mr. Soham Badole, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Praful A. Salvi, a/w Mr. Vighnesh Kadam, Mr. Sarthak Kadam,
Mr. Nitin Salvi, i/b Mr. Vicky Salve, Advocate for the Respondent
No.2.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 08.09.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
takes exception to the order dated 09.07.2026 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali
Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 742 of 2026.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions
Pramod S.Lakare
1/5
18-apeal-711-2026.doc
Judge has rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by the
present appellants, who are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.
153 of 2025 registered at Gorai Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 352, 189(2), 190 &
191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)
(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. There was a property dispute between the deceased
and the family members of the present appellants. It is alleged
that on account of said property dispute, on the date of the
incident, which took place on 12.12.2025, the present appellants
and other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted
the deceased by knife and committed his murder. It is further
alleged that the deceased and his family members, who belong to
Scheduled Tribe, with a view to humiliate them were abused by
the appellants on their caste.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2.
Pramod S.Lakare
2/5
18-apeal-711-2026.doc
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is
submitted that in the first information report lodged by the wife of
the deceased who is also an eye witness to the incident, nothing is
alleged against the present appellants. It is submitted that even in
the statements of the eye witnesses, no specific overt act is
attributed to the present appellants. It is submitted that the first
informant in her supplementary statement dated 24.12.2025 with
some ulterior motive for the first time had made afterthought
allegations against the present appellants that they abused her
and the deceased in filthy language. It is submitted that nothing is
to be recovered at the instance of the appellants, and therefore,
there is no need of custodial interrogation. It is submitted that
there are no other criminal antecedents against the appellants.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-
State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the
appellants are involved in the serious offence of murder. It is
submitted that the present appellants were present at the place of
the incident and there are statements of eye-witnesses to that
effect. It is submitted that, considering the nature of the crime and
Pramod S.Lakare
3/5
18-apeal-711-2026.doc
in view of the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC
& ST Act, the present appellants may not be released on
anticipatory bail.
7. I have perused the charge-sheet. In the first
information report lodged by the wife of the deceased, who is an
eye-witness to the incident, nothing is alleged against the present
appellants. The eye witnesses have not attributed any overt-act to
the present appellants. The possibility of making afterthought
allegations against the appellant therefore, cannot be ruled out.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to
release the appellants on anticipatory bail. In the result, the
following order is passed.
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The order impugned is set aside.
iii) In the event of arrest of the appellants in
connection with Crime No. 153 of 2025 registered
at Gorai Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 352,
Pramod S.Lakare
4/5
18-apeal-711-2026.doc
189(2), 190 & 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the
appellants be released on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
iv) The appellants shall not enter into the
jurisdiction of the Gorai Police Station till
conclusion of the trial.
v) The appellants shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Pramod S.Lakare
5/5
Checking your session…